16 teams is a joke. 16/32 teams would make the playoffs. Why even have a regular season at all? TOO many teams would be in.

14? It means one less 1st round bye and one more team in the mix. If we HAD to expand the playoffs, 14 gets my vote. Still has a bye, the length isn't expanded, and still less than 50% of the teams make the playoffs. The bracket would look like:#1 Bye#5 @ #4

#6 @ #3#7 @ #2

If they decided to re-seed like they do now, they could have the highest seed winner (4, 5, 6, or 7) travel to #1, and the lower seed will host the higher seed of the other two seeds.

Looking at last year, the bracket would have been(16 or 14 teams):AFC(#8 New York Jets or BYE) @ #1 New England#5 Pittsburgh @ #4 Denver

#6 Cincinnati @ #3 Houston#7 Tennessee @ #2 Baltimore

NFC(#8 Arizona or BYE) @ #1 Green Bay #5 Atlanta @ #4 New York Giants

#6 Detroit @ #3 New Orleans#7 Chicago @ #2 San Francisco

Looking back at past seasons (to 2003), almost every year has a 8-8 team as the #8 seed in a 16 team playoff. 2004 was the worst and 7-9 Carolina would have been #8

-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year ---- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --

I am definitely against this and love the NFL's current playoff format. But at the same time, I was opposed to both rounds of baseball's playoff expansion, and that has turned out great (albeit with a very small sample size for the most recent change).

I think this situation is different in that baseball's playoffs even now only include 10 out of 30 teams, the NFL already has a higher ratio than that now, without expanding. But still, I'm willing to let it play out before forming a serious opinion.

But thinking about it, I really hate the NBA playoffs. The conference and NBA finals are great, but everything before that is kind of boring. I hate the idea of the top teams potentially suffering an injury in the first round against a .500 or worse team and then losing to the second- or third-seeded teams in later rounds because of it.

I hate this idea. I hate taking away the byes for the #1 and #2 seeds. I hate having 8-8 teams be more in the playoff mix (and that's as a fan of the 2008 Patriots, who were 11-5 and ended up the first team out of the playoffs.) There is already one dog playoff game that first weekend, we don't need another one.

If I was the NFL I wouldn't change ANYTHING - schedule, playoff format - unless the league was expanded to 36 teams. An 18-game schedule is perfect for a 36-team league, and having 14/36 teams make it isn't rewarding mediocrity.

Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus

I don't know if I like the idea of no byes for teams that earn it. I am sure it will happen due to the dollar sign. If they care about player safety why would you add more games? They might as well hand the ex-players and the players union, a blank check, because that is my merciful than what the courts will do.

The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.

I love the current NFL schedule -regular season and playoff. Don't touch it.

I love the symmetry- every team in the division plays the same teams from the other division NFC and AFC plus two conference games against the team that finished the same rank (1,2,3,4) The 32 teams allows for eight even divisions (four AFC and four NFC).

Originally posted by TheBucsFanBut thinking about it, I really hate the NBA playoffs. The conference and NBA finals are great, but everything before that is kind of boring. I hate the idea of the top teams potentially suffering an injury in the first round against a .500 or worse team and then losing to the second- or third-seeded teams in later rounds because of it.

Originally posted by Mr Heel IIThe NHL has a 16-team format. Playoffs run from April-June. Drives me nuts.

Agreed. I've seen a few people argue for this saying that the NBA and NHL have half their teams in the playoffs but I don't think either has a good playoff system. The NBA just has way too many uninteresting match ups. The NHL can be a little more exciting with upsets but the playoffs go on forever.

I also agree with Zereul that if we HAVE to add more playoff teams I would be for 14 over 16 because the worst part of this in my opinion is losing the first round byes.

But really, 14 teams? Is there really any interest in the Jets fighting off the Bills, Browns, Dolphins and Chargers for a playoff spot?

Against the expansion. Can not see 16 team working because it would mean head to head playoff games on networks, diluting TV audiences, and the only reason to make any move is television. If they go 14, the triple header window that is used on Sunday's can be used on both days of the weekend and provides additional inventory to sell to the networks.

Originally posted by QuezzyAgreed. I've seen a few people argue for this saying that the NBA and NHL have half their teams in the playoffs but I don't think either has a good playoff system. The NBA just has way too many uninteresting match ups. The NHL can be a little more exciting with upsets but the playoffs go on forever.

I think if you were trying to make the case for why the NBA and NHL have 16-team playoff formats the answer is two-fold: (1) it doesn't make any sense competitively for a team or two to have a two-week layoff as a bye while other teams play a best-of-seven series and (2) the NBA and (moreso) the NHL still draw a significant amount of income from playoff attendance (which is basically free money since they stop playing players at Game #82). If I'm a top NBA or NHL team and I have the best record I'm guaranteed at least two home playoff games and probably more, so a bye is less of an appealing option.

Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus

The bye is such a critical aspect in Football. 2 full weeks to rest and prepare is huge. Without pulling up the sample sizes, I know I've read that teams coming off a bye fare dramatically better than those who are not.

If they MUST expand (and they do not) - then 14 is the obvious answer so that the top teams don't rest their starters down the stretch as there's ALWAYS something to play for unless you're looking down the barrel of a 14-0 team that simply can't be caught. Otherwise, if you go to 16, there is literally no difference between the team that finishes 9-7 and the team that goes 14-2 except home field. For a lot of teams, this truly is not a big factor unless you are Seattle.

Another aspect to consider when comparing NBA/NHL playoffs to the NFL is that over a 7-game series, barring a major injury, the odds that the better team will win are greater than in a single elimination game. The odds of a #8 seed beating a #1 seed are low, but not non-zero. Adjusting the playoff schedule doesn't just add another two or four games, but it also presents risk that a lowly-ranked team could upset the playoff order. Football's low number of games has always meant that the odds of the best team winning the championship are lower than in other sports, and this just exacerbates that.

Also, regarding the schedule, what's to stop the NFL from spreading out the playoffs from Thursday or Friday all the way to Monday? Perhaps one of the advantages to getting the higher seeds would be picking your playoff time? As a #1 seed, would you rather play the #8 seed on a short week and then get a week and a half rest before round #2, of just keep a regular seven day schedule? There could be some intrigue here, but it still sucks for the top seeds as opposed to getting a bye.

Personally, I'd like to see a full 32-team playoff series. Get rid of the two in-conference games against similarly ranked teams so everyone plays a 14-game schedule for seeding, and then start the tourney in mid-December. Turn it into the NFL version of March Madness that lasts for two months.

I'm against the expansion of the playoffs. Simply put, how can Goodell claim to be about the safety of the players and yet want to expand their seasons (both regular and playoffs)? I feel having to play more games where you can get bruised and worse for no increase in salary isn't worth it and I can't see the players letting this fly.

Originally posted by supersalvadoranI'm against the expansion of the playoffs. Simply put, how can Goodell claim to be about the safety of the players and yet want to expand their seasons (both regular and playoffs)? I feel having to play more games where you can get bruised and worse for no increase in salary isn't worth it and I can't see the players letting this fly.

Expanding to 16 teams means that the entire postseason will be expanded by 4 games as both #1 and #2 seeds will no longer have a bye.

It only really impacts 4/32 teams. 1/8th of the players play an extra game vs what they play now. I don't see how it will have a negative effect on player safety at all.

-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year ---- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --

Originally posted by cfgbIf they MUST expand (and they do not) - then 14 is the obvious answer so that the top teams don't rest their starters down the stretch as there's ALWAYS something to play for unless you're looking down the barrel of a 14-0 team that simply can't be caught. Otherwise, if you go to 16, there is literally no difference between the team that finishes 9-7 and the team that goes 14-2 except home field. For a lot of teams, this truly is not a big factor unless you are Seattle.

This is the correct answer. If you switch so that only the top seed gets a bye, then the regular season matters for more teams trying to achieve that bye, less teams resting starters and only adds two games and two teams to the mix. This seems like the best compromise, though I like it fine just the way it is.

Originally posted by supersalvadoranI'm against the expansion of the playoffs. Simply put, how can Goodell claim to be about the safety of the players and yet want to expand their seasons (both regular and playoffs)? I feel having to play more games where you can get bruised and worse for no increase in salary isn't worth it and I can't see the players letting this fly.

Expanding to 16 teams means that the entire postseason will be expanded by 4 games as both #1 and #2 seeds will no longer have a bye.

It only really impacts 4/32 teams. 1/8th of the players play an extra game vs what they play now. I don't see how it will have a negative effect on player safety at all.

8/32 teams (1/4); the four teams losing their byes, and the four teams qualifying for the playoffs.

Originally posted by TheBucsFanI am definitely against this and love the NFL's current playoff format. But at the same time, I was opposed to both rounds of baseball's playoff expansion, and that has turned out great (albeit with a very small sample size for the most recent change).

This Braves fan says, "Um, excuse me?!"

No matter the sport, expanding the postseason by adding single-game rounds makes it that much less likely that your postseason will end with the best team that year being champion. Anything can happen in a single game. A 6-10 team could get a fluky win over a 14-2 powerhouse. A blind ump-- oops, I mean ref-- could blow a major call that changes the outcome.

Baseball absolutely devalued their regular season with their most recent expansion and football would necessarily be doing the same. But it would give lesser teams relevance deeper into the season, which leads to more fan dollars, which leads to your world champion, the St. Louis Rams!